How unadvisable is it to flip the protagonist into a villain?
Essentially, I have a protagonist who I set up as a 'main' good guy in one of my series. However, in my final series, I intend to make him turn to the dark side and oppose my other protagonists (from my other series).
My question:
Should I avoid turning my protagonist into an antagonist? Are there any foreseeable problems with this? Will this be a problem for readers? Any tips or tricks to handle this?
Thanks!
EDIT (in response to comments and answers):
I should've mentioned this before, but it's clear in his series that the protagonist-turned-antagonist is very devious, and he has had hostile intentions previously towards the protagonists of the other series.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/34250. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
The main problem will likely be that your readers should like your protagonist - you want them to read a whole series with him as the main character after all. If the character you like suddenly without any warning turns into the super bad guy they will ask themselves "What happened?!" and they may not like that.
Furthermore you have to be careful about how you present the protagonist-turned-antagonist. If you are for example writing from the first person perspective it should be obvious that he sometimes has evil plans. If not you should think very carefully about what it was that made him turn to the dark side. What was the reason for him to suddenly be one of the bad guys? Is it maybe one of his main character traits, like never breaking a promise or bringing someone he loved back from the dead or because it's better to have a good dictator than a bad democracy, ...? Why would he do that and why did he not do something like that when he was the protagonist?
But it's possible - with enough foreshadowing and knowing that it might turn away people that want their favourite to stay their favourite.
If you already showed that your initial protagonist doesn't like your later protagonist(s) and that he is not afraid of going... unusual... paths to achieve his goals it might even feel normal or like the expected climax of the story - people were expecting that something should happen. You should make it feel like the books of your first "protagonist" are missing something. The final fight. Like it's not over yet and they still have some business to take care of with the other(s). Then your readers will anticipate it and will not be surprised or even turned away by this. Still, a protagonist changing to the dark side may feel a bit weird for some people and there might still be some who won't accept that ending - you can't please everyone.
0 comment threads
I want to share an example of how this was done wrong.
Let us turn to the great bastion of bad writing - 2000s computer games.
Enter MechWarrior 4. You play as Ian Dressari, rebel leader. You are trying to overtake Duke Roland, who killed your family and usurped the throne. You do it by driving big, cool-ass mechs.
plot happens
The game ends with your tooshie back in the rightful throne. All is well in the world. For the entire game, your character was portrayed as being a good person - friendly, inspiring loyalty, good sense, etc. You even have opportunities to put yourself at risk helping people not directly associated with your cause - I think a couple instances there is NO game benefit for doing so.
But wait, an expansion pack has been announced!
Enter MechWarrior 4: Black Knight
Now, suddenly, your former player character is the bad guy! The reasoning? "Oh, well he wasn't a good duke after all." No further elaboration.
The writers left the players with literary blue balls. No great exposition on how Ian's thirst for vengeance for his slain family led him to abandon the people around him. No discussion on how his desire to insulate himself from future assassins and treachery meant that he refused to hire competent people to run the kingdom. Just "Oh, he was bad."
You can do it. It can be powerful. Others gave the example of Darth Vader. Without offering spoilers, Brandon Sanderson has a lot of face-heel (and heel-face) turns in his writing - all of them are pretty satisfying because he builds on the reasoning for 300 pages before it happens, even for minor characters like Vyre. You have to start justifying it from the start of the story, and build on it until the only reasonable conclusion that your readers can reach is "Oh, well of course he's a bad guy. Look at all the ways he's wronged others in his quest so far."
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34285. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
You readers are invested in your character. There are multiple things they like about him, right? Those things cannot just disappear - that would leave your reader angry, frustrated, and feeling betrayed by you. The character's Fall needs to be believable.
And after the Fall, there's the question of Redemption. Your readers are invested in the character, right? They empathise with him. They'd hope for Redemption for him. What about your new protagonists, then? Do they acknowledge any of this? Do they hope for anything other than your old protagonist's death? Do you offer him a chance of redemption? (The character doesn't have to accept that chance - he can choose to turn away from it. The moment of choice would be powerful either way.)
Most importantly, is your new antagonist as complex a character as he was before his Fall? If you flatten him out, you will lose readers.
0 comment threads
The good character who turns bad is a classic feature of literature. It is the essence of the literary form we call tragedy.
Thus Macbeth opens with high praise for the virtuous Macbeth:
SOLDIER.
Doubtful it stood;
As two spent swimmers that do cling together
And choke their art. The merciless Macdonwald,—
Worthy to be a rebel,—for to that
The multiplying villainies of nature
Do swarm upon him,—from the Western isles
Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied;
And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
Show'd like a rebel's whore. But all's too weak;
For brave Macbeth,—well he deserves that name,—
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smok'd with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion,
Carv'd out his passage, till he fac'd the slave;
And ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements.
DUNCAN.
O valiant cousin! worthy gentleman!
SOLDIER.
As whence the sun 'gins his reflection
Shipwrecking storms and direful thunders break;
So from that spring, whence comfort seem'd to come
Discomfort swells. Mark, King of Scotland, mark:
No sooner justice had, with valour arm'd,
Compell'd these skipping kerns to trust their heels,
But the Norweyan lord, surveying vantage,
With furbish'd arms and new supplies of men,
Began a fresh assault.
DUNCAN.
Dismay'd not this
Our captains, Macbeth and Banquo?
SOLDIER.
Yes;
As sparrows eagles, or the hare the lion.
But Macbeth turns bad, and thereby hangs the tragedy. This is all classic stuff and some of the greatest works of literature follow this pattern.
The challenge in what you propose, though, it that series literature, essentially popcorn books meant to be consumed quickly and ravenously, don't tend to deal much in tragedy. Their taste is more bitter than popcorn, and I'm not sure if the audience you will have built over the earlier books is going to be ready for bitter herbs with their popcorn.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads